Refusing Service II

[Inspector Javert]

Most of it is unintelligible yammer based on your own anger, fear and prejudice to the point that it doesn't warrant response --

Don't you DARE try to presume to know what's in my head or whether you think I harbor predjudices etc...

You have NO IDEA NONE.

You have no idea how I feel about gays or what predjudices I may or may not have. You have NO IDEA. You'd be surprised, I imagine, how I feel about homosexuals if you bothered to ask instead make unwarranted assumptions.

No, I'm saying that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all persons living as naturalized or natural-born persons in the United States, while at the same time stating that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a "refusal of service" clause that covers those situations you don't want to be involved in. You keep forgetting that.

I'm not forgetting that....I simply haven't mentioned it....

Here's why:
I'm not inclined to disagree with you
about your interpretation of "refusal of service" clauses... I'm debating your over-reach of the 14th Ammendment....That's all I'm debating. That's all I've talked about. You're not even paying attention. You're busy presuming you know what's in my head rather than reading what I'm saying.

Why would I "demand" any such thing while pointing out that an "out" already exists for those who find mere contact with those in the homosexual lifestyle to be abhorrent?

I don't know why, but, then I don't presume to know what's in your heart.

I just know that the 14th Ammendment does not demand that anyone be forced under penalty of law to engage in business transactions which are against their conscience... You think it does.

If I was "demanding" such a ridiculous thing, I would argue against there being any escape from such contact.

That may be true, but, I don't presume to know your heart as you presume to know mine, so I make no such assumptions.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth states unequivocally that " ... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

You're correct here:
How does that require anyone to engage in business contractual obligations which are against their conscience??
Please explain.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Correct:
...
And therefore, just as it would be wrong to refuse a Heterosexual the right
refuse service... it would be wrong to refuse a homosexual that same right.
You see, everyone is protected by that statute!! :thumbsup:

There is no escaping the fact that the laws proposed in Arizona and Kansas were in direct violation of that clause,

Really??
You mean they only protected certain people's religious convictions and not other's??
You mean not everyone was protected by the same statute?

Please explain:

and would have been overturned at the first judicial review.

Only if, I assume, one such as yourself were ruling:
I think anyone who knows the law or Constitution at all would realize that the 14th Ammendment is simply irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant.

Also, due to the "right to refuse service" clause in the CRA of 1964, the laws were unnecessary.

Umm...apparently not, inasmuch as some people's livelihoods have been ruined.
That's why they thought it was very necessary indeed.

Those are the simple facts. When your emotionalism and hyperbole are left aside, you can't argue against those simple facts.

:sleep:

-- though I doubt you believe that --

Why?
I assume you are telling the truth about what you think, and I don't presume to know how you think and feel unless you tell me.

I would appreciate the same courtesy personally.

but the law of the land is the law of the land.

Yes, and one of those "laws" is the 14th Ammendment, which, incidentally, happens to be completely irrelevant.....That's all I'm arguing.

Well, now that's hardly consistent! Either I'm amazing, or I'm in the same vein as deranged judges who would force people to abandon their conscience.

No, those are not explicitly contradictory statements, they can both be true.

Which is it, IJ?

Both

You can't possibly hold to both opinions?

Sure I can.

How about you revisit your logic skills and set aside Psycho-analyzing anyone who disagrees with you for a while instead

Once again, I cannot possibly be in the same vein as such judges, who I agree wholeheartedly are attempting to rewrite the Constitution from the bench.

Not in general, no.
I'm saying that it is precisely that type of judge who would abuse the 14th Ammendment to overturn such protective laws...
You happen to be arguing precisely as they would in this instance.

Why? Because I know there is already a way -- as I've told you and others many, many, many, many times -- to disable their ability to sue and ensure your ability to withhold services if that is what you want to do.

Apparently, that "Way" is insufficient. That's what the Legislators of Arizona are trying to fix:
They are writing STATE STATUTE, not
FEDERAL STATUTE:

These Christians are being sued in STATE COURTS
I assume you know the difference right????

I'm amazed you haven't resorted to the ultimate insult you could saddle me with: LIBERAL!!

You would be, because you are again, assuming too much about what I think and feel,
I know you are not a "liberal".

If you answer those questions honestly, the discussion is over.

Hardly, and I shall:

1. Can those who practice homosexual behaviors be defined as "persons"?

Yes, so what?

2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that all "persons born or naturalized" in the U.S. have full and equal protection under the law?

Yes, therefore it would be wrong to demand one class of persons engage in business contracts which oppose their conscience, but deny that same right to another class of persons.

3. Does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit laws that would deny certain classes of person either identity as "persons" or deny such persons those equal protections?

That simply sounds like a re-wording of the above question.

4. Given the answers you must provide to the first three, are those who engage in homosexual practices, behaviors or lifestyles have equal protection under the law?

Of course...
Homosexuals shouldn't be forced to engage in un-conscionable business associations any more than a heterosexual should.

Or, on the other hand, you've let emotionalism and hyperbole, and likely your own personal prejudice, run amok over reason, Christian love for our neighbor (defined by the Bible as "everyone") and galloped roughshod over concern for the unsaved. That, unfortunately, is exactly what you've done.

How much is this Psycho-babble session going to cost me today???
Because I'm pretty sure I would like to avoid this business association:
Unless, of course, you have a 14th Ammendment argument which will require that I engage in this association with you.

Tell you what: I'll continue to witness to gays, tell them lovingly and gently of their sin, present the gospel to them, pray for them and with them, treat them for their addictions they engage as the result of degradation, rejection and animosity if not outright hatred --

You, again, have NO IDEA...NONE about how I treat homosexuals, how many I know or don't know, how I feel about them, or what I believe the Scriptures teach about homosexuality...
NONE
You are making predjudicial assumptions about what you think is in other people's hearts and minds. And I can GUARANTEE YOU the assumptions you are making about how I feel about homosexuals are DEAD WRONG.

But.....you have chosen to resort to demonizing me, rather than have the "intelligent conversation" you claim to really desire.

Deal?

Does the equal Protection Clause of the 14th Ammendment require me, under penalty of law to engage in this deal, or am I free to exercise my discretion, and obey my conscience?

 

[Iconoclast]

Don't you DARE try to presume to know what's in my head or whether you think I harbor predjudices etc...

You have NO IDEA NONE.

You have no idea how I feel about gays or what predjudices I may or may not have. You have NO IDEA. You'd be surprised, I imagine, how I feel about homosexuals if you bothered to ask instead make unwarranted assumptions.


I'm not forgetting that....I simply haven't mentioned it....

Here's why:
I'm not inclined to disagree with you
about your interpretation of "refusal of service" clauses... I'm debating your over-reach of the 14th Ammendment....That's all I'm debating. That's all I've talked about. You're not even paying attention. You're busy presuming you know what's in my head rather than reading what I'm saying.

I don't know why, but, then I don't presume to know what's in your heart.

I just know that the 14th Ammendment does not demand that anyone be forced under penalty of law to engage in business transactions which are against their conscience... You think it does.

That may be true, but, I don't presume to know your heart as you presume to know mine, so I make no such assumptions.

You're correct here:
How does that require anyone to engage in business contractual obligations which are against their conscience??
Please explain.

Correct:
...
And therefore, just as it would be wrong to refuse a Heterosexual the right
refuse service... it would be wrong to refuse a homosexual that same right.
You see, everyone is protected by that statute!!

Really??
You mean they only protected certain people's religious convictions and not other's??
You mean not everyone was protected by the same statute?

Please explain:

Only if, I assume, one such as yourself were ruling:
I think anyone who knows the law or Constitution at all would realize that the 14th Ammendment is simply irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant.

Umm...apparently not, inasmuch as some people's livelihoods have been ruined.
That's why they thought it was very necessary indeed.



Why?
I assume you are telling the truth about what you think, and I don't presume to know how you think and feel unless you tell me.

I would appreciate the same courtesy personally.

Yes, and one of those "laws" is the 14th Ammendment, which, incidentally, happens to be completely irrelevant.....That's all I'm arguing.

No, those are not explicitly contradictory statements, they can both be true.

Both

Sure I can.

How about you revisit your logic skills and set aside Psycho-analyzing anyone who disagrees with you for a while instead

Not in general, no.
I'm saying that it is precisely that type of judge who would abuse the 14th Ammendment to overturn such protective laws...
You happen to be arguing precisely as they would in this instance.

Apparently, that "Way" is insufficient. That's what the Legislators of Arizona are trying to fix:
They are writing STATE STATUTE, not
FEDERAL STATUTE:

These Christians are being sued in STATE COURTS
I assume you know the difference right????

You would be, because you are again, assuming too much about what I think and feel,
I know you are not a "liberal".

Hardly, and I shall:

Yes, so what?

Yes, therefore it would be wrong to demand one class of persons engage in business contracts which oppose their conscience, but deny that same right to another class of persons.

That simply sounds like a re-wording of the above question.

Of course...
Homosexuals shouldn't be forced to engage in un-conscionable business associations any more than a heterosexual should.

How much is this Psycho-babble session going to cost me today???
Because I'm pretty sure I would like to avoid this business association:
Unless, of course, you have a 14th Ammendment argument which will require that I engage in this association with you.

You, again, have NO IDEA...NONE about how I treat homosexuals, how many I know or don't know, how I feel about them, or what I believe the Scriptures teach about homosexuality...
NONE
You are making predjudicial assumptions about what you think is in other people's hearts and minds. And I can GUARANTEE YOU the assumptions you are making about how I feel about homosexuals are DEAD WRONG.

But.....you have chosen to resort to demonizing me, rather than have the "intelligent conversation" you claim to really desire.

Does the equal Protection Clause of the 14th Ammendment require me, under penalty of law to engage in this deal, or am I free to exercise my discretion, and obey my conscience?

:thumbs::applause::wavey:

 

[Aaron]

Really?? Did the Bible say to absolutely reject a certain class of sinners to the point no one will preach the gospel to them?

This accusation has come up several times. Just wondering who takes this position.

 

[Aaron]

But.....you have chosen to resort to demonizing me, rather than have the "intelligent conversation" you claim to really desire.

That's the only recourse for those who are losing the debate.

 

[Aaron]

Lay off the accusatory and crude language. It will only cause you trouble.

I use the word "homosexual" because it is an accurate term, as is "lesbian." But sodomy is not so accurate, unless the context is specific. We are not stuck in the 17th century bound to Shakespearan English. Grow up! The English language has many adjectives and synonyms which the writer can use to describe the ideas he needs to get across.

One does not need to use "Aaron-approved vocabulary" on this board.
And that is a good thing because I have had to edit some of its profanity.
Perhaps if you learn more about our language and how to use it you would be better off.

Aaron-approved vocabulary is to be preferred to the Newspeak that promotes sodomy to the level of the identity of a person.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I'm not inclined to disagree with you
about your interpretation of "refusal of service" clauses... I'm debating your over-reach of the 14th Ammendment....That's all I'm debating. That's all I've talked about. You're not even paying attention. You're busy presuming you know what's in my head rather than reading what I'm saying.

But your not emotional, right?

I just know that the 14th Ammendment does not demand that anyone be forced under penalty of law to engage in business transactions which are against their conscience... You think it does.

Kindly show me where I've said that. Not once. All I've said is that everyone in the United States -- including five-year-olds, by the way -- are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Let me explain to you how the Fourteenth has been interpreted, how its usage has evolved since its passage. The amendment is deliberately vague and open-ended, it precludes no classifications (except "non-taxed Native Americans" who no longer exist) including racial or religious ones, making it open to interpretation by the "courts of the future" from the date of its passage.

Whether we like it or not -- and again, I don't, but there's nothing I nor anyone else can do about it -- sexual orientation has found its way into the limelight of the Fourteenth, because of how those who self-identify as gay, lesbian, transgendered or bisexual are treated in the workforce, the business arena, and in general. The issue therefore is not whether gays are covered by the amendment. As a sociopolitical group, they must be, just as Christians, Muslims, etc., who have legitimate concerns regarding discrimination. Again, the Amendment makes no classification, and was very carefully written so as to avoid being viewed as a “special” protection for anyone group. That is why your claim yesterday that it covered men over 21 years of age was totally off base. The Amendment makes no such distinction.

The issue becomes, particularly in regards to the laws considered in Arizona and Kansas, whether or not the classifications in a given law are arbitrary. Laws designed to suppress the interests of blacks or Native Americans would be arbitrary, and therefore violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Laws designed to suppress the interests of Christians, Jews or Muslims would also be arbitrary, and therefore violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Laws designed to suppress the interests of either men or women would be arbitrary, and therefore violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Arizona and Kansas laws would come under what the courts have defined as “suspect” classifications. What that means is that certain laws passed by local and state governments have a stated purpose that may not be the real purpose behind the law. Certain forms of classification, such as race, gender, religion, and national origin have been interpreted as “suspect;” that is, any law mentioning these classifications either for special protection or for special limitation, becomes suspect before the court in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.

So how did the two state-proposed laws become “suspect” in their classifications? They did so by mentioning specifically the religious sensibilities of certain individuals. While the laws were both purposed in their language to protect the religious beliefs and practices of individuals, the purpose that would be viewed by the courts was the exclusion of those who live what are laughably called “alternate lifestyles” relative to sexual practice. Again, it is ridiculous from our perspective as Christians that such “lifestyles” would be set apart for protection, but the bottom line is, the Fourteenth is written so as to single out no one classification of persons, but to protect all persons.

If Christians businessmen and businesswomen were going to ask about adultery, fornication, theft, gossip, etc., maybe the laws would have flown, but even that is doubtful. The only issue these laws would have been used to address is homosexual behavior. Like it or not, that's discrimination. A business on Main Street or Wall Street has an undeclared but implied policy of nondiscrimination in conducting business. These laws would have made it possible to get around that policy, and in so doing, would have violated the Fourteenth Amendment. And yet again, the laws weren't needed. Protection for refusing service is already in place.

The simple fact of the matter is, the Arizona and Kansas laws were written for the express purpose of affording Christians the right to refuse service to gays. Under the law, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever, could also refuse service to adulterers, liars, murderers, or other sinners, given that those “lifestyles” also violate our sensibilities as people of faith.

The laws were unnecessary, the laws were discriminatory, the laws were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Period. I’m done here.

 

[Aaron]

But can you honestly tell me a Christian or other person of faith would ask the kind of questions necessary to ascertain whether or not they should serve them?

No questions have to be asked. It's being thrown in our faces, and you are arguing against the righteous response thereto.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

No questions have to be asked. It's being thrown in our faces, and you are arguing against the righteous response thereto.

Wrong. The question was indirectly asked in ascertaining what kind of event was taking place. Upon finding out that it was a gay wedding, service was refused. Whether we like it or not, that's singling out a group for discrimination. When we open a business, we have an undeclared but implied contract with the public to serve all the public. There is already a method by which we may refuse service without implying discrimination.

Be Christian: Witness, love. Don't discriminate.

 

[DHK]

Wrong. The question was indirectly asked in ascertaining what kind of event was taking place. Upon finding out that it was a gay wedding, service was refused. Whether we like it or not, that's singling out a group for discrimination. When we open a business, we have an undeclared but implied contract with the public to serve all the public. There is already a method by which we may refuse service without implying discrimination.

Be Christian: Witness, love. Don't discriminate.

Normally I would agree with you. If you are a baker selling cookies and bread and such, I would agree with you.
But this is a wedding cake. Normally in a wedding cake the bride asks for a figurine of a bride and groom kissing each other or in some other pose to be placed on the top of the cake. I can't condone that. I would not bake such a cake with some kind of figurine of two men kissing each other placed on the top of the cake. This might be the issue when I think of a wedding cake.
Other products I would have no problems selling. Selling products that condone the lifestyle is wrong. Selling products simply to discriminate is wrong.

 

[DHK]

Aaron-approved vocabulary is to be preferred to the Newspeak that promotes sodomy to the level of the identity of a person.

This is a sample of your arrogance and unwillingness to be taught. It shows that you do not even know the meaning of the word that you want to use. Sodomy has more than one meaning. You are the one misusing the English language and not being accurate with words. Our language is fluid, changing over time. If the proper terminology is not used misconceptions are held. Don't live in the Dark Ages Aaron. The Bible is not a science book.

 

[Aaron]

Wrong. The question was indirectly asked in ascertaining what kind of event was taking place. Upon finding out that it was a gay wedding, service was refused.

So what? There is no third degree. It would take an incredible amount of work and lying to hid the fact that a particular "wedding" is a gay one. From the most basic of questions asked of true brides and grooms the perversion is exposed.

Whether we like it or not, that's singling out a group for discrimination.

And that's where you're wrong, because no one would deny the right of a gay man to marry a woman. What is being resisted is the sodomy. That is the simple fact of the matter.

Be Christian: Witness, love. Don't discriminate.

Love rejoices not in iniquity. Would Jesus have turned water to wine at a gay "wedding."?